Bangalore District Court
Suma B.R. Pi vs Sampath Lal Prajapath on 23 August, 2025
KABC030187622021
Presented on : 15-03-2021
Registered on : 15-03-2021
Decided on : 23-08-2025
Duration : 4 years, 5 months, 8 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLV ADDL.CJM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 23rd day of August 2025.
Present: Shri Ganapati Bhat
B.Sc., LL.B(Spl.). L.L.M.
XLV Addl. C.J.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s. 392 BNSS.
Case No. : C.C.No.6333/2021
Date of Offence 21.05.2020
Name of complainant : State by North CEN Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Sr. APP)
Name of accused : Sampathlal Prajapath
S/o Kharatha Ram,
aged 38 years,
R/o No.98 Laggere Main road,
Opp. Canara Bank,
Parvathinagar,
Bangaluru.
(By Shri Kumar, Advo.)
2 C.C.No.6333/2021
Offences complained of: U/s.67(B) of I.T. Act.
Date of filing of charge 03-01-2021
sheet:
Date of recording of 19-07-2023
evidence:
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Accused is acquitted
Date of Order 23-08-2025.
JUDGMENT
Inspector of Police, North CEN Police Station, Bengaluru has filed charge sheet against accused above named for offence punishable under Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act.
2. Brief facts stated in the charge sheet are as follows:-
In between 27-11-2018 to 29-6-2020, the accused has indulged in seeing the photo and video of the minor girl who engaged in sexual activities from his mobile bearing No.9886846810. It is stated that NCRB portal has sent the report along with the CD to the CID, Karnataka. It is further 3 C.C.No.6333/2021 stated that the said CID, Karnataka has sent the said CD and tipline report to the North CEN police. C.W.1 has prepared the sue moto complaint/report and given it to the C.W.2. C.W.2 inturn registered the FIR as per crime No. 426/2020 for the offence punishable under section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act. After conclusion of investigation, I.O. has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.67(B) of I.T.Act.
3. The accused was arrested during crime stage and he was enlarged on bail. After filing of this charge sheet, cognizance of alleged offence is taken and the accused has appeared after service of summons. The copy of charge sheet is furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The charge is framed and read over to the accused. The accused has not 4 C.C.No.6333/2021 pleaded guilt of alleged offence and he claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has got examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. M.O.1 is identified. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating evidence against him and he has not led any defence evidence.
5. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, the following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused in between 27-11-2018 to 29-6-2020 watched the children sexual explicit video and hence committed offence punishable under section 67(B) of I.T. Act?
2. What order ?5 C.C.No.6333/2021
6. Heard arguments of learned Sr.APP and learned counsel for accused. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The following are findings to above points.
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has watched children sexually explicit video and photo in his mobile. In support of its case, the prosecution has got examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5. P.W.1 is the police official who has registered the FIR in this case. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He has denied the suggestion that the accused has not seen the disputed video and photo. P.W.2 is the pancha who turned hostile in this case. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 by learned Sr.APP. C.W.3 is examined as P.W.3 6 C.C.No.6333/2021 in this case. In the examination-in-chief, he has stated that he has taken the print outs of the CDR and SDR and he has given the certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act for the said documents and handed over them to the investigation officer. The said documents are collectively marked as Ex.P5 and the said certificate under section 65-B is marked as Ex.P4. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the certificate under section 65-B was sent by the CID police. C.W.1 is the sue moto complainant and investigation office of this case. She is examined as P.W.4. She has stated that she has received a cyber tipline report from the CID Special Cell and submitted a report to C.W.2 for taking proper action. She has stated that on the basis of her report, a Crime No.426/2020 is registered under Sec.67(B) of I.T. Act against the accused. She has further stated that she has issued notice to the panchas and secured the panchas. She has stated that she has seized the 7 C.C.No.6333/2021 CD in the presence of pancha as per P.F.No.2/2020. She has further stated that she has deputed C.W.2 and C.W.3 to find out the accused. She has further stated that the accused was not traced. She has further stated that the accused appeared on 21-11- 2020 and submitted that he has taken the bail from the court. She has stated that she has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. She has further stated that she has recorded the statement of C.W.4 and C.W.5 and submitted the charge sheet on 3-1- 2021. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has enquired the accused in the police station. She has further stated that since the accused has stated that the mobile was misplaced, she has not seized the said mobile. She has further stated that without examining the sim card, she is not in a position to tell who has watched the video and photo. She has further stated that she don't know who has shared the said video and photo to the accused. She 8 C.C.No.6333/2021 has admitted that she don't know from which mobile, the said videos are uploaded. The testimony of the this witness would tell only about the manner of investigation. She has admitted that she has not conducted the investigation about how the alleged video has reached the mobile of the accused.
8. C.W.5 is another pancha in this case. He is examined as P.W.5. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the CD was seized by the police. He has stated that he don't know from whom it was seized. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the photo and video in the said CD. He has further stated that at the time of panchanama, the Inspector was not present. He has stated his ignorance regarding the presence of the other witnesses at the time of panchanama. 9 C.C.No.6333/2021
9. Firstly, it is relevant to note that the FIR was lodged on 29-6-2020. Ex.P2 is the FIR and Ex.P1 is the report submitted by C.W.1. In Ex.P2, it is stated that the offence had happened on 21-5-2020 and the FIR was registered on 29-6-2020. Therefore, from Ex.P2, it is clear that the FIR is lodged after one and half month from the date of the alleged offence. In the report, it is stated that the tipline report and CD was received from the CID Cell. But the date of receipt of such tipline report is not stated in Ex.P1. Ex.P6 is the letter sent to the Police Inspector, Central CEN Police Station. The said letter is dated:5-6-2020. But the FIR is not registered immediately after the receipt of the said letter by the North CEN police. Neither in Ex.P2 nor in any other document, the delay in lodging FIR is properly explained. It is a settled principle of law that the delay in FIR which is reasonable and properly explained will not affect the case of the prosecution. However, unexplained and inordinate 10 C.C.No.6333/2021 delay will not only create a reasonable doubt but also goes against to the prosecution. No certificate under section 65B of India Evidence Act certificate was annexed to tipline CD marked as MO1. As per Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, the prescribed certificate should be in compliance with the said provision. As per the said provision, the person who has lawful control over the computer has to give the certificate narrating the model of the computer with its specification and the model and other details of the instruments which were used for the purpose of creation of the secondary evidence.
10. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P6 is the letter sent to the Station House officer and same was received by the SHO of the station on 5-6-2020. However, the FIR is dated 29-6-2020. Therefore, the FIR is lodged after 20 days from the date of receipt of the said information. The prosecution has not 11 C.C.No.6333/2021 explained the 20 days delay in lodging the FIR. Ex.P4 is the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which was given for the print out of the contents of the CD marked as M.O.1. The Police Constable of the concerned police station has given this certificate. In Ex.P4, there is no mentioning of the instrument/computer which has received the input information and to which instrument/computer, the data is fed into. These requirements are mandatory for a valid certificate under Sec.65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The absence of the details in the certificate regarding the computer and the instrument from which the secondary evidence is generated will make such evidence inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The basic lacuna in the certificates which is marked as Ex.P4 will make the said electronic evidences as inadmissible under law. The prosecution has not explained why the mandatory material details are not available in the Ex.P4. The 12 C.C.No.6333/2021 M.O.1 is the base material for the initiation of the prosecution in this case. Therefore, the authenticity and admissibility of such document is to be proved by the prosecution with the help of either documentary or oral evidence. No certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidecne Act is given to the tipline CD marked as MO1.Further, the instrument from which the M.O.1 is generated is also not stated in this case.
11. The Investigating officer has not produced the exact content of the alleged sexually explicit video and photo and same are not marked in this case. Some CDR and call details in the CD are produced along with the charge sheet are marked in this case. But, the certificate given to that documents under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is not admissible. It is pertinent note that the tipline report is not produced in this case. Therefore, neither the primary data nor the secondary evidence of the primary data is 13 C.C.No.6333/2021 produced before this court. The M.O.1 itself is not admissible in evidence for the simple reason that it is not coupled with a valid certificate under Sec.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.
12. It is relevant to refer Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. It reads as follows:
"65B. Admissibility of electronic records.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any records. information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any 14 C.C.No.6333/2021 contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2)The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-
(a)the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b)during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c)throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating 15 C.C.No.6333/2021 properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d)the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3)Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-
(a)by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b)by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c)by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d)in any other manner involving the successive 16 C.C.No.6333/2021 operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4)In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,-
(a)identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b)giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c)dealing with any of the matters to which the 17 C.C.No.6333/2021 conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5)For the purposes of this section,-
(a)information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b)whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course 18 C.C.No.6333/2021 of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c)a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation. -
For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process."
According to this Section, to treat any computer out put as secondary evidence, it has to comply the provisions of Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
13. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on ruling reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
19 C.C.No.6333/2021
"But Section 65B(1) starts with a nonobstante clause excluding the application of the other provisions and it makes the certification, a precondition for admissibility. While doing so, it does not talk about relevancy. In a way, Sections 65A and 65B, if read together, mixup both proof and admissibility, but not talk about relevancy. Section 65A refers to the procedure prescribed in Section 65B, for the purpose of proving the contents of electronic records, but Section 65B speaks entirely about the preconditions for admissibility. As a result, Section 65B places admissibility as the first or the outermost check post, capable of turning away even at the border, any electronic evidence, without any enquiry, if the conditions stipulated therein are not fulfilled".
Therefore, the Officer who is in-charge of the computer in the CID Cell and the officer in-charge of the CEN Police Station were required to provide a valid 20 C.C.No.6333/2021 and lawful certificate under Sec.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.
14. There is no clarity regarding contents available in the CD. The sources from which the said sexually explicit video and photo are generated is also not forthcoming in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The approximate age of the child or the identification of the child is not stated in this case. Therefore, without producing the primary or secondary evidence regarding the disputed data/material, the nature of the offence committed by the accused cannot be said to be proved.
15. In order to invoke the offence punishable U/Sec.67-B of Information Technology Act, the prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients of Sec.67-B of Information Technology Act. Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act reads as follows: 21 C.C.No.6333/2021
"67B. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. -
Whoever-(a)publishes or transmites or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct; or
(b)creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner; or
(c)cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource; or
(d)facilitates abusing children online, or
(e)records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children,shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:Provided that provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure in electronic form-
(i)the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing drawing, painting representation or figure is in the interest of science, 22 C.C.No.6333/2021 literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or
(ii)which is kept or used for bona fide heritage or religious purposes. Explanation. -For the purposes of this section "children" means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years."
According to this section, the accused should have published or transmitted sexually explicit material relating to the children to invoke section 67(B) of I.T. Act. Therefore, the essential ingredient of the section 67(B) of the I.T. are as follows:
1) There shall be sexually explicit materials/contents
2) ) The sexually explicit content should be relating to a children
3) The said content should have been apprenticed or transmitted or shared downloaded, watch etc.
16. Therefore, to attract Se.67(B) of I.T Act, the said sexually explicit material should relate to a child. Hence, identification of the child under such 23 C.C.No.6333/2021 circumstances, is very much essential and required. If the entire prosecution material and evidence are looked into, then this aspect of identification of child is constantly lacking. The approximate age of the children, details of the child and the details of the website from which the said obscene materials are downloaded/shared are not proved in this case.
17. The Investigating Officer has not sent the CD to the FSL for obtaining the expert opinion. P.W.3 and PW4 have not stated that they have expertise in verification of these electronic materials and they possesses special knowledge in this regard. Further, the analysis of CD and its verification methods are not stated in the evidence. The prosecution has not explained why the CD has not been sent to FSL for obtaining the expert report.
18. The P.W.4 has not stated how he has come to the conclusion that the alleged contents are sexually 24 C.C.No.6333/2021 explicit photo and video related to child. The Investigating Officer ought to have examined the contents of the CD independently instead of relying upon CDR and call details report which don't substantiate the case of the prosecution.
19. Yet another important aspect in this case is that the Investigation officer has not examined who is the owner of the alleged mobile phone which is used for the purpose of the commission of the offence. There is no document produced to show the ownership of the mobile and sim card alleged have been involved in this case. The customer form of the sim card and the details of the KYC documents furnished at the time of purchase of the sim card are not secured and produced by the investigation officer. Further, C.W.1 who is a higher officer to C.W.2 has given the report and C.W.2 who is a subordinate officer to C.W.1 registered the FIR. Except the official witnesses and 25 C.C.No.6333/2021 panchas, no other witnesses have been examined in this case.
20. As it appears from the prosecution records, the CID officials have only forwarded the cyber tipline CD and forwarding letter to the North CEN Police Station. The forwarded letter sent by CID official was marked as Ex.P5. In the said letter, it is stated that the CID Special Cell has done some primary investigation after receipt of the complaints in cyber tipline. In the said letter, it is further stated that they have not registered any FIR and they have directed the concerned I.O. to get the complete information regarding contents of the CD. The Investigating Officer has not collected complete informations regarding the contents of the CD. The prosecution has not explained the 20 days delay in lodging the first informations report even after the CID officials have forwarded the documents to the North CEN police station. Therefore, without basic 26 C.C.No.6333/2021 informations like age of the child, etc, regarding the said video and photo, the accused cannot be held to be guilty of alleged offence only on account of some tipline CD and call details records. The prosecution has failed to prove the essentials of Sec.67(B) of Information technology Act by adducing cogent evidence. The defects in the investigation and lack of evidence go to the root of the matter and which create serious doubt regarding the commission of the alleged offence by the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
21. Point No.2: - For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1, following is:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,/371(1) of B.N.S.S., the accused is acquitted for the 27 C.C.No.6333/2021 offence punishable under Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act.
M.O.1 being CD, it is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
The bail bond and surety
bond executed by the accused
stands canceled.
(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer directly on computer, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 23 rd day of August, 2025).
(Ganapati Bhat) XLV Addl. CJM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :-
P.W.1, Nagaraj, P.W.2, Shivakumar, P.W.3, Sreeshail Basappa, P.W.4, Suma B., P.W.5, Satish R.;
List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-
Ex.P1, Complaint,
Ex.P2, FIR,
Ex.P3, Mahazar,
Ex.P4, 65B certificate,
28 C.C.No.6333/2021
Ex.P5, Print out,
Ex.P6, CID report,
Ex.P7, Mahazar;
List of material object :
M.O.1, CD;
List of Witnesses examined for defence:- NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL XLV Addl. CJM., Bengaluru 29 C.C.No.6333/2021 23-8-2025 Judgment pronounced in Open Court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,/371(1) of B.N.S.S., the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act.
M.O.1 being CD, it is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused stands canceled.
23-8-2025 XLV ACJM, Bengaluru.